CHANAN SINGH NARAIN SINGH Vs. SEWA RAM SUKHDIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE questions have been formulated for reference to the Full Bench-- (1) What is the import of the words 'in similar circumstances' in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act of 1949? (2) Do the above words 'in similar circumstances' govern the word 'same' in addition to qualifying the words 'similar accommodation"? (3) Does the development of an area denote a change of circumstances for the purpose of the above clause?

(2.) THE reference has arisen out of cross-revision petitions filed by a landlord and tenant relating to the fixation of the fair rent of the premises in dispute under section 4 of the Act. The premises comprise a shop No. 23 which is one of a number of shops collectively styled as the Rajkumar Market, situated on the G. T. Road at Batala, a town in the district of Gurdaspur. The Rajkumar Market was admittedly built in 1951-52. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act reads--

(3.) THE shop in dispute was let to the present tenant in October 1956 at a monthly rent of Rs. 34. 00 which was reduced to Rs. 25. 00 as a result of a compromise on a previous application under Section 4 of the Act. However, a further application was filed in November 1957 and the Rent Controller assessed the basic rent at Rs. 18. 00 and the fair rent with the increase permitted under the Act of 50 per cent at rs. 27. 00. The learned Appellate Authority took into account the development of the town and held that a shop which would bring in a rent of Rs. 4. 00 or Rs. 5. 00 in 1938 would have brought in a rent of Rs. 15. 00 if the conditions flow prevailing had prevailed in 1938 and he therefore added 50 per cent to it and assessed the fair rent at Rs. 22. 50.